Minn. H.S. Recruiting Success ≠ Winning

[Goldmember]

Most of the regulars here acknowledge that "locking down the borders" will translate to winning about as well as having matching shades of maroon will translate to winning.

But there is still an occasional moron who is plenty willing to believe that the reason Minnesota didn't score that winning touchdown in the final minute against Wisconsin last year is that an occasional Minnesota HS recruit decides to commit to Stanford, USC or even Wisconsin, Iowa or Nebraska.

Rivals has 100 recruits in Texas ranked as high as anyone in Minnesota. 40 are ranked higher than anyone in Minnesota. Every year, dozens of these recruits are plenty willing to entertain the idea of playing Big Ten football; some would argue even more so than some of Minnesota's unranked "recruits".

MINNESOTA
TEXAS

While the value of rankings can certainly be argued at the micro level, these rankings should definitely be used as a macro-level point of reference for any legitimate follower of college football. To have no perspective of this talent divide is to be clueless. In fact, it would be easy to believe that the only upside to the Gophers recruiting Minnesota at all is for PR and brand-building (i.e. selling the product to local consumers) - rather than it being some legitimate source of talent that will really "help" the team win games.

Of course landing a good local recruit is alway desirable. But landing a good Texas (or Kansas, or anywhere else) recruit is too. Sorry for stating the obvious to some of you. I just figured the release of these rankings is a timely reminder that "locking down the borders" would be a pointless, futile exercise - despite what some Minnesota High School-homers like to say.

I get tired of hearing their BS when it is so easily demonstrated to be baseless.

 

[RodentRampage]

Of course landing a good local recruit is alway desirable. But landing a good Texas (or Kansas, or anywhere else) recruit is too. Sorry for stating the obvious to some of you. I just figured the release of these rankings is a timely reminder that "locking down the borders" would be a pointless, futile exercise - despite what some Minnesota High School-homers like to say.

How can something be desirable, yet also be pointless and futile?

 

[Unregistered User]

I want to close the borders for the elite prospects in the state, not necessarily every prospect in the state.

 

[Goldmember]

How can something be desirable, yet also be pointless and futile?

Landing a good recruit = desirable
Locking the borders = pointless and futile

They are not the same thing.

For example, I like to be friends with good people. But I don't expect to be friends with all of the good people in town. And my attempt to do so would be ridiculous. I would need to resort to calling everyone my close personal friend. Soon people would laugh at me.

 

[GoGophers2005]

There are about 3 states (California, Texas, and Florida) that can claim that they have closed the borders. That is mostly due to the fact that each has over 4 D-1 schools within its borders. A top athlete has very nice schools in which to choose from those states. Not very often does a Florida kid choose Georgia when they have Miami, FSU, and Florida offering scholarships. I said not very often, not never.

Now Minnesota. I think Minnesota has pretty darn good high school football players. The majority of which are not going to end up on any recruiters boards for a variety of reasons, but mostly because they are off reviewing Texas kids where they can evaluate 4 times the amount of kids without going out of their way. We need to get the Bunders, Gjere, Hagemans etc. just like we've been doing and complimenting them with outstate kids.

Let's remember that Paterno and the mighty Penn State didn't make the final 2 in the Terelle Pryor recruitment. It doesn't make Penn State bad, its just that Pryor wanted to play elsewhere. Nothing they could have done about it.

 

[RodentRampage]

Landing a good recruit = desirable
Locking the borders = pointless and futile

Locking the borders means landing all the good recruits from the state that you want to have. If there is a recruit that the U isn't interested in, it's not a violation of 'locking the borders' if we don't sign him.

 

[Ole]

Locking the borders means landing all the good recruits from the state that you want to have. If there is a recruit that the U isn't interested in, it's not a violation of 'locking the borders' if we don't sign him.

Exactly, I would argue we came very close to this in 09', getting mostly who we wanted locally.
A few that went other places were not top priorities.(some clemson guy is the exception)

I do think getting a solid base of blue collar types and walk ons is important. Minnesota kids are just fine in filling depth roles and the local outstanding individuals can star along with the outstate talent. We've got a nice mix going right now IMO, not that I wouldn't have liked to get a few more the last cycle through, but we've got local kids rising into contributing or starting spots, and we will also feature guys from place like Texas, Florida, and California as well.

This year is lean, next year from what I can gather will be a talent rich class, hopefully we can do well when the cycle swings our way.

 

[Goldmember]

I want to close the borders for the elite prospects in the state, not necessarily every prospect in the state.

I do too.

But if you look at the state rankings and commitments for every state from 2010 it's hard to believe that this is a realistic expectation. Out of all 50 states, what state has really been successful in "locking its borders?"

And ultimately, any local "loss" can very easily be supplanted by a national recruit. So "locking the borders" may constitute some sort of moral victory, but it doesn't make sense to believe that it will accomplish much on the field as long as you're adequately recruiting nationally.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Most of the regulars here acknowledge that "locking down the borders" will translate to winning about as well as having matching shades of maroon will translate to winning.

But there is still an occasional moron who is plenty willing to believe that the reason Minnesota didn't score that winning touchdown in the final minute against Wisconsin last year is that an occasional Minnesota HS recruit decides to commit to Stanford, USC or even Wisconsin, Iowa or Nebraska.

Rivals has 100 recruits in Texas ranked as high as anyone in Minnesota. 40 are ranked higher than anyone in Minnesota. Every year, dozens of these recruits are plenty willing to entertain the idea of playing Big Ten football; some would argue even more so than some of Minnesota's unranked "recruits".

MINNESOTA
TEXAS

While the value of rankings can certainly be argued at the micro level, these rankings should definitely be used as a macro-level point of reference for any legitimate follower of college football. To have no perspective of this talent divide is to be clueless. In fact, it would be easy to believe that the only upside to the Gophers recruiting Minnesota at all is for PR and brand-building (i.e. selling the product to local consumers) - rather than it being some legitimate source of talent that will really "help" the team win games.

Of course landing a good local recruit is alway desirable. But landing a good Texas (or Kansas, or anywhere else) recruit is too. Sorry for stating the obvious to some of you. I just figured the release of these rankings is a timely reminder that "locking down the borders" would be a pointless, futile exercise - despite what some Minnesota High School-homers like to say.

I get tired of hearing their BS when it is so easily demonstrated to be baseless.

Your argument is so flawed that to address every flaw would require more time than I am willing to spend. The fact that you base the overwhelming majority of your argument on rankings pretty much says it all.

I will just say this, if like Texas the Gophers signed every instate player they wanted the past 10 years we would not be having this conversation? You know why? Because the Gophers would be a nationally ranked team annually, therefore like Texas anyone the Gophers signed would receive a higher rankings thereby giving ranking obsessed posters the "release" they so need. Look at our neighbors to the east and south. Last season each of them had great seasons with MULTIPLE Minnesotans in starting positions.

You may want to get an understanding of how rankings work. Very little of the rankings are directly based on someone watching film of a player and then assigning them a ranking. The majority of the ranking system is based on quality of offer (how good they school has been). Here lies the problem. Do you think that LSU, Florida, Texas, Ohio State ECT will recruit skill position players out of Minnesota when they have tons of them in their own back yard? I would argue per capita Minnesota produces more than its share of elite football players.

Let's say Minnesota would have signed Larry Fitgerald, Ryan Harris, Trevor Laws, John Carlson, Brandon Robinson to name a few along with the Minnesota players they did get. The Gophers would have won or competed for several Big Ten titles. They would be considered one of the big boys and every player they signed (Adam Weber) would have had higher rankings. You know why Ohio State very seldom signs a 2 star player? Because the moment they offer that player gets an extra star.

The main difference between Texas and Minnesota is the margin of error (Texas has more D1 players), Mack Brown can tell Texas high school players the first 25 that commit will receive scholarships and to hell with the rest. In Minnesota every big time recruit that chooses to play elsewhere has a much larger negative impact.

 

[Goldmember]

I would argue per capita Minnesota produces more than its share of elite football players.

Please help me to understand how "elite football players per capita" is germane to this conversation. I would be able to understand how it is if all states (particularly Texas and Minnesota) had the same number of D1-FBS teams per capita.

The objective of recruiting is to pair players with teams ... not to pair players with residents.

 

[RodentRampage]

If I have a business, I'll do a lot better if I can maximize business in my neighborhood. Sure, I can also sell product online, but if I'll do better if I can sell both locally and online.

 

[Kratos3]

I'd like to see us take more local kids, but never in sacrifice of getting someone more talented. The Bauman kid from last year comes to mind. I think he deserved at least a chance. There are always some who fall through the cracks.

 

[Thunderlips]

Most of the regulars here acknowledge that "locking down the borders" will translate to winning about as well as having matching shades of maroon will translate to winning.

But there is still an occasional moron who is plenty willing to believe that the reason Minnesota didn't score that winning touchdown in the final minute against Wisconsin last year is that an occasional Minnesota HS recruit decides to commit to Stanford, USC or even Wisconsin, Iowa or Nebraska.

Rivals has 100 recruits in Texas ranked as high as anyone in Minnesota. 40 are ranked higher than anyone in Minnesota. Every year, dozens of these recruits are plenty willing to entertain the idea of playing Big Ten football; some would argue even more so than some of Minnesota's unranked "recruits".

MINNESOTA
TEXAS

While the value of rankings can certainly be argued at the micro level, these rankings should definitely be used as a macro-level point of reference for any legitimate follower of college football. To have no perspective of this talent divide is to be clueless. In fact, it would be easy to believe that the only upside to the Gophers recruiting Minnesota at all is for PR and brand-building (i.e. selling the product to local consumers) - rather than it being some legitimate source of talent that will really "help" the team win games.

Of course landing a good local recruit is alway desirable. But landing a good Texas (or Kansas, or anywhere else) recruit is too. Sorry for stating the obvious to some of you. I just figured the release of these rankings is a timely reminder that "locking down the borders" would be a pointless, futile exercise - despite what some Minnesota High School-homers like to say.

I get tired of hearing their BS when it is so easily demonstrated to be baseless.

Having Larry Fitzgerald, Micheal Floyd, Brandon Robinson, Mark Levior, Trevor Laws, John Carlson, Nate Swift, Lydon Murtha, John Stocco, David Gilreath, James Laurinatis, Ryan Harris, Marcus Coleman, Rafael Eubanks, ETC ETC ETC and countless other Minnesotans that turned into 1-AA studs, would have been

“ a pointless, futile exercise”

…wow….. we better keep signing all the Hayo Carpenters of the world that we can. You know, all those 5 star studs from Cali that you seem to enjoy so much.

Who needs those “PR” players listed above?! They wouldn’t “help” the U at all

 

[GoGophers2005]

I truly believe this is a Minnesota complex. We are always concerned about why people don't like our State or why people don't want to stay here. Paranoid? Or is it that we need to have reassurance that where we live is a nice place to live?

I think Minnesota has enough quality kids to keep some home and have some leave state. I think its a wash.

 

[Kratos3]

Those were all top rated players. Of course we would want them. That's what locking down the borders would be, not letting those guys leave. It isn't simply signing every MN kid.

 

[Unregistered User]

I do think getting a solid base of blue collar types and walk ons is important.

This is why this is important. We need to be able to convince some kids that a walkon at the U is worth it. There is a very good history of rewarding those hardworking kids with schollies down the road. I think this type of locking up the borders is similar and as important as the locking up of the elite players in this state.

 

[Goldmember]

Having Larry Fitzgerald, Micheal Floyd, Brandon Robinson, Mark Levior, Trevor Laws, John Carlson, Nate Swift, Lydon Murtha, John Stocco, David Gilreath, James Laurinatis, Ryan Harris, Marcus Coleman, Rafael Eubanks, ETC ETC ETC and countless other Minnesotans that turned into 1-AA studs, would have been (awesome) predictable sarcasm omitted

So let me see if I've got this straight. Your expectation is that 100% of all top-recruits from the state Minnesota are going to become Gophers. Further, you expect that no player from Minnesota shall flourish at the D1-FCS level (for he should have instead have been expertly evaluated, offered and accepted to play in the Big Ten for the Gophers).

OK. SO we all have our own expectations. I guess that's yours.

Just curious... what state/school is currently meeting your 10-year standard??

 

[bankonit]

the Good Minnesota kids are few and far between. Even the good ones suck (i.e. WLA) If we fielded a team of all Minnesota kids we would have a hard time competing against Bethel

 

[MV.]

The relationship is really inverse: winning leads to better in-state recruiting, not the other way around. Wisconsin dealt with this same problem in the 90's when Alvarez first arrived; top prospects wanted nothing to do with Becky and they couldn't pay people to show up at Camp Randall. A few Rose Bowls later, and the Skunks land nearly every in-state prospect they offer. For those that pay attention to the rankings, Wisconsin and Minnesota are nearly congruent in the amount of talent produced (2 5* for both and ~14 4*+) in the "Rivals Era;" the difference here is Wisconsin has landed all but 2 of those prospects, while the Gophers have landed 4.

 

[wels0081]

When Barry Alvarez first took over at Wisconsin in the early 90s, I think he summed it up best. (Especially since Wisconsin and Minnesota are in similar spots when it comes to high school talent).

"We're going to get our heart right here from the state of Wisconsin, but we'll go to Florida and Texas to get our hands and feet."

While I hate Wisconsin, I argue it worked for his teams and I'm hoping with Horton on-board we can find a way to tweak what we've got going and finally turn this thing around.

 

[Thunderlips]

So let me see if I've got this straight. Your expectation is that 100% of all top-recruits from the state Minnesota are going to become Gophers. Further, you expect that no player from Minnesota shall flourish at the D1-FCS level (for he should have instead have been expertly evaluated, offered and accepted to play in the Big Ten for the Gophers).

OK. SO we all have our own expectations. I guess that's yours.

Just curious... what state/school is currently meeting your 10-year standard??

You are the one who basically said that recruiting in MN is a waste of time, and that MN players are essentially nothing but “PR” stunts. That group I listed above disagrees.

Also, If I had the time, I would look up all of the other lightly recruited players that this state has produced and list them for you, since you clearly underestimate MN football players.
Off the top of my head….Decker, Birk, two Barbers , Rallis, Scherlls (sp?) Vandesteeg, Setterstrom, Spaeth, Stephenson, Jared Peck, Craig Dahl etc etc etc…… are just a few examples of MN players that were lightly recruited.


I would love to have all of them on my team.

 

[ChiGopher]

Self-fulfilling prophecy

1) As much as it pains me, Sportsfan24 is right on. Rivals and Scout are fan-based websites whose rankings reflect number of offers and the "quality" of programs extending those offers. These sites do not analyze the recruits ... they simply analyze the analysis of that recruit.

2) No, Goldmember, those critical of the current regime to not expecting 100% of the blue chip in-staters to choose the 'U.' However, it has become an annual tradition for Gopher fans to watch the top 1-3 MN recruits to play their college football elsewhere. Even if the Gophs landed the State's top recruit once every 2-3 years, that would much better than what we have experienced in my lifetime.

3) If you took an average D-I recruit in the state of Texas or Florida and moved that recruit to Vermont or Minnesota or Idaho, that recruit's status on Rivals or Scout would probably drop significantly.

 

[Goldmember]

2) No, Goldmember, those critical of the current regime to not expecting 100% of the blue chip in-staters to choose the 'U.' However, it has become an annual tradition for Gopher fans to watch the top 1-3 MN recruits to play their college football elsewhere. Even if the Gophs landed the State's top recruit once every 2-3 years, that would much better than what we have experienced in my lifetime.

You seem to be outraged that Minnesota isn't meeting your standard for in-state recruiting. But it is obvious that your negative perception is based this on the whimsies of just a handful of kids (mainly Floyd, McNeal and Henderson) as they were hounded by schools from all over the country. Not reality.

Minnesota successfully kept the state's #1 in 2007, Anthony Jacobs. He looks to be a solid starter for the next two years. Three years later, Tommy Olson (Minnesota's #1 for 2011) is currently a committed Gopher. That means the Gophers are nealy on-pace to meet your standard.

But along the way Minnesota also secured 6 of the top 7 (academically eligible) Minnesota recruits from the 2009 class and 2 of the Top 3 recruits from the 2010 class.

 

[KoolAid]

Having Larry Fitzgerald, Micheal Floyd, Brandon Robinson, Mark Levior, Trevor Laws, John Carlson, Nate Swift, Lydon Murtha, John Stocco, David Gilreath, James Laurinatis, Ryan Harris, Marcus Coleman, Rafael Eubanks, ETC ETC ETC and countless other Minnesotans that turned into 1-AA studs, would have been

“ a pointless, futile exercise”

…wow….. we better keep signing all the Hayo Carpenters of the world that we can. You know, all those 5 star studs from Cali that you seem to enjoy so much.

Who needs those “PR” players listed above?! They wouldn’t “help” the U at all

I'm just glad someone found a way to work Hayo's name into this thread

 

[dpodoll68]

Rivals and Scout are fan-based websites whose rankings reflect number of offers and the "quality" of programs extending those offers. These sites do not analyze the recruits ... they simply analyze the analysis of that recruit.

False.

I could literally go on for days about how your perception of this is wrong, but I'll offer one example:

Ja'Juan Story has offers from (among others) Florida, Auburn, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Maryland, Miami, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M, and
West Virginia.

Now, surely, a prospect with Florida, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, OSU and Tennessee offers is a surefire 5-star, top 25 prospect, right?

So how is it that Ja'Juan Story is the #31 WR, and not even in the Rivals Top 250? I mean, the quality and number of offers are the only thing that's important, right?

Aw, hell, just for fun, I'll add one more example.

Glen Faulkner has one offer. From Kentucky. A school that has won 2 conference titles (the last in 1976) despite being in the SEC forever. Surely, this lad with one offer that is from a mediocre school is a 2-star, possibly even low 3-star prospect, yes? Why, no! Faulkner is the #3 safety in the land, #83 overall, and is quite safely a 4-star prospect. How can this be? A player with a mere one offer, one not even from a good school? Surely this is in error!

 

[RodentRampage]

It's better to be able to get the top recruits from Minnesota than not to be able to get the top recruits from Minnesota.

 

[Noonan]

What bearing does the recruits hometown have on his impact to the program? I agree it's nice to see kids from MN on our team. However, at this point, I am more concerned with having a winning football team. I prefer good kids who can play football, regardless of where there parents decided to homestead.

 

[RodentRampage]

What bearing does the recruits hometown have on his impact to the program? I agree it's nice to see kids from MN on our team. However, at this point, I am more concerned with having a winning football team. I prefer good kids who can play football, regardless of where there parents decided to homestead.

Imagine you have a store. Your store sells both locally and mail order. Will you make more more money if you 1) only sell via mail order 2) sell by mail order AND sell locally.

The answer is obviously 2). More sales = more money.

It's not directly relevant where the player lives, just that it is in your state. A team should have an advantage in recruiting in their own states - that DIRECTLY leads to having more and better players on the football field. If it is good to have a pipeline to other states, it is good to have a pipeline to our own state!

 

[KoolAid]

False.

I could literally go on for days about how your perception of this is wrong, but I'll offer one example:

Ja'Juan Story has offers from (among others) Florida, Auburn, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Maryland, Miami, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M, and
West Virginia.

Now, surely, a prospect with Florida, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, OSU and Tennessee offers is a surefire 5-star, top 25 prospect, right?

So how is it that Ja'Juan Story is the #31 WR, and not even in the Rivals Top 250? I mean, the quality and number of offers are the only thing that's important, right?

Aw, hell, just for fun, I'll add one more example.

Glen Faulkner has one offer. From Kentucky. A school that has won 2 conference titles (the last in 1976) despite being in the SEC forever. Surely, this lad with one offer that is from a mediocre school is a 2-star, possibly even low 3-star prospect, yes? Why, no! Faulkner is the #3 safety in the land, #83 overall, and is quite safely a 4-star prospect. How can this be? A player with a mere one offer, one not even from a good school? Surely this is in error!

Well that's two examples.

But ChiTown is right to some extent. While Rivals does employs talent evaluators that watch and analyze film, a lot of the "final" evaluations are based on the quality and quantity of scholarship offers.

Therefore, Tommy Olson will probably only be a 3-star prospect - Wah-wah (that's a crying noise by the way).

 

[Hates Monikers]

Imagine you have a store. Your store sells both locally and mail order. Will you make more more money if you 1) only sell via mail order 2) sell by mail order AND sell locally.

The answer is obviously 2). More sales = more money.

It's not directly relevant where the player lives, just that it is in your state. A team should have an advantage in recruiting in their own states - that DIRECTLY leads to having more and better players on the football field. If it is good to have a pipeline to other states, it is good to have a pipeline to our own state!

This is how I view the importance of in-state recruiting, too. Sure, Texas might have 100 prospects as good or better than the top Minnesotan. But it should be easier for us to land the Minnesotan than any of the Texas players. That's where it hurts to lose our top players.

Henderson, Maresh, Alipate, Hageman, Lauranitis ... we got some and didn't get some. But most of them probably wouldn't have let us in the door if they lived in Texas. We need to get as many of them as we can.